About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
it >> when we just had this. to watch harry reid complain about it is much. he had a chance to do something and he bailed. he had an agreement with mitch mcconnell. he have this 60 vote rule. >> reforming the filibuster in a way that the rules we're saying this is the ten dansy there is nothing to interrupt this ten dansy right now. it is hard for me to be sympathetic to harry reid when he says oh my god look at these people abusing it when you had a chance to do something about it and he didn't. >> and they replaced him with a crazier senator ted cruz. but the right way for john mccain to have expressed his outrage would have been with a different vote today. rather than supporting the crazy cruz side of this argument. this guy claims to be a friend of chuck haegle. he is allowing this undignified process to go forward and participating in it. it is ugly and bad for his long-term image. >> running the pentagon is a hard job. it is one of the largest workforces in the world. there are strong centers of p power in that building. none of that has been litigated at all. i know they talked to a
-8. and both were eventually easily confirmed. today, senate majority leader harry reid knew he did not have the votes to clear the republican procedural hurdle, but scheduled a vote anyway to demonstrate this. >> republicans have made an unfortunate choice to ratchet up the level of destruction here in washington. there's nothing going to change in the next ten days about the qualifications of chuck hagel. i guess to be able to run for the senate as a republican in most places of the country you need to have a resume that says, i helped filibuster one of the president's nominees. believe that helps. believe that keeps a guy from a tea party guy from running against you. >> here's what president obama said just after today's vote. >> the notion that we would see an unprecedented filibuster just about unprecedented, we've never had a secretary of defense filibustered before, there's nothing in the constitution that says that somebody should get 60 votes. there are only a handful of instances in which there's been any kind of filibuster of anybody for a cabinet position in our history. and wha
agenda than he has been using for other parts of the bill. that could be if senator harry reid's argument -- that is essentially dead on arrival anyway. >> if diane feinstein doesn't have the assault weapons at least let her have an opportunity to offer this amendment. >> will you vote for it? >> i don't know, frankly -- and she knows i didn't read her amendment. i didn't vote for the assault weapons last time because it didn't make sense, but i'll take a look at it. >> joining me now to take a look at it. editor for the new republic, good to see you, my friend. >> thanks for having me on the show, ezra. >> so that didn't sound enormously encouraging from harry reid, kind of sounded like the assault weapons ban will get a bit of a pro forma vote and that is about it. >> i think everybody knew going into the fight the different elements of the gun legislation agenda, that the assault weapons ban would be one that had the hardest road ahead. in part because you know you still need 60 votes to pass anything in the senate. and in part because the republicans control the house. and in part bec
be a complete victory over barack obama and harry reid. and some republicans say just let the sequester happen, let the cuts happen. he says it is understandable because going to the trouble of fixing the sequester would be fixable, and the effort to do so would create strains in the republican congress. but what is understandable is not always responsible, allowing the sequester to go into effect would be deeply irresponsible. steve, deeply irresponsible has never been a winning argument with the house republicans. it has never scared them. >> but i guess, this is an interesting division in the republican party with the rise of the tea party. because the republican party has traditionally been the protector of the defense contracts. there is a conservative part that says to heck with them, we're in favor of big sweeping cuts but we're also okay with big sweeping cuts to the defense department. then you have big crystal, john mccain even floating the idea maybe he would be okay with more revenue as long as it meant getting the revenue off the sequester. the interesting thing here, march one is
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)